|
An isolationist China would probably work too, but I've not done it personally
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 05:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
Ivan Shitskin posted:Has anyone here actually beaten the Chinese army and broken free from them? They invaded me ages ago with a ridiculously huge army and forced me to be a tributary but I'm tired of it, dammit. After they invaded me, they went through a golden age that lasted decades, so their armies were even more powerful than normal. Now they are 'stable' but who knows how long that will last. I'd like to wait until they go into disorder or civil war but their stability never ends. One was a small area on the south of Ireland, another was a small single land in China. The later actually made peace randomly but then I got a uprising that is four times my army.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 05:36
|
|
|
China tried to declare war on me in the building up phase of an Aladdin run and I somehow chumped them by cheesing the Himalayas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
Ivan Shitskin posted:Has anyone here actually beaten the Chinese army and broken free from them? They invaded me ages ago with a ridiculously huge army and forced me to be a tributary but I'm tired of it, dammit. After they invaded me, they went through a golden age that lasted decades, so their armies were even more powerful than normal. Now they are 'stable' but who knows how long that will last. I'd like to wait until they go into disorder or civil war but their stability never ends. Or if they're Slavic/Romuva/Suomenusko/West African, they can call up defensive warriors with piety.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 06:45
|
|
|
Or they could be Mercs if they have hella cash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 13:16
|
|
|
Walton Simons posted:Or they could be Mercs if they have hella cash. That what I am figuring. I just can't believe they still got cash since one of the reasons I attacked because the other country near me took most of their land and they had few men left according to the city overview.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
The last possibility is that it's rebels. I wish rebels weren't always hostile and you could aid them, but I guess that's more of an EU thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
I think the idea is that when the rebels are peasants the entire idea of filthy commoners revolting against their lords and thus the Great Chain of Being is so repugnant that every CK2 lord will of course be against it. That's arguably not an entirely inaccurate generalization to make about how peasant rebels would have been seen in the Middle Ages; pragmatically yes it would be rad to be able to subsidize your jerk neighbour's peasant rebellion but I have trouble imagining that being a strategy that would have sat well with many medieval aristocrats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
evenworse username posted:I think the idea is that when the rebels are peasants the entire idea of filthy commoners revolting against their lords and thus the Great Chain of Being is so repugnant that every CK2 lord will of course be against it. That's arguably not an entirely inaccurate generalization to make about how peasant rebels would have been seen in the Middle Ages; pragmatically yes it would be rad to be able to subsidize your jerk neighbour's peasant rebellion but I have trouble imagining that being a strategy that would have sat well with many medieval aristocrats. yeah, once a mob of peasants arm themselves and start to fighting their lord there's very little to stop them from fighting the lord next door as well. enraged peasants are generally anti-lord
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
Kinda one of those things where making game mechanics pushes you towards a certain angle of political interpretation. You're not allowed to pretend to be a man of the people, your place in the game mechanics automatically means you're so far beyond them you can't possibly communicate. And then they take that perspective into making Imperator, and everybody gets mad that they can't live out their fantasy of ancient socialism
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
One thing I wish had heavier consequences (or any consequences, really) is giving out titles to lowborns. I can go win a Crusade for the Holy Land and give the county and kingdom of Jeruselum to a peasant revolt leader I pulled out of my dungeon five minutes ago, and nobody bats an eye. Hell, even the guy himself gets nothing beyond the -10 vassals malus the peasant leader trait gives. Realistically the nobility should be threatening to flip their poo poo if I make some lowborn scum a simple backwards count.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
Some of the marriage stuff you can do should have people losing their minds as well. 'Why yes, I am going to marry your 20 year old daughter to a poxed lunatic 50 year old heretic.' People of status being strongarmed into marriages that denigrated their status was more or less guaranteed to get the quality in an uproar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
I guess maybe an additional "nouveau riche" modifier might make sense, but I don't think nobility really worried about that, especially if they got ennobled by a legitimate source, like being appointed by a lord. There's a number of "rags-to-riches" stories like that, and even by the time of the French Revolution, new people were being ennobled by buying titles, although often new nobles concoct stories of how actually they were noble all along, which muddies things. I think historically most class warfare from the top is preventative. They don't actually try to force people down a strata once they've clawed their way up because that might provide a bad example. Maybe. I'm not a real expert.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
evenworse username posted:I think the idea is that when the rebels are peasants the entire idea of filthy commoners revolting against their lords and thus the Great Chain of Being is so repugnant that every CK2 lord will of course be against it. That's arguably not an entirely inaccurate generalization to make about how peasant rebels would have been seen in the Middle Ages; pragmatically yes it would be rad to be able to subsidize your jerk neighbour's peasant rebellion but I have trouble imagining that being a strategy that would have sat well with many medieval aristocrats. Wouldn't medieval warfare also have been a disorganized shitshow? Given how screwed up conflict zones got in the early modern - or, hell, even nowadays - I imagine a lot of rebels would take the stance of "stab anything that isn't holding our banner"
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
MaxieSatan posted:Wouldn't medieval warfare also have been a disorganized shitshow? Given how screwed up conflict zones got in the early modern - or, hell, even nowadays - I imagine a lot of rebels would take the stance of "stab anything that isn't holding our banner" Depends greatly on period. In the early MA war was extremely low scale in terms of numbers involved and breadth of conflict; sometimes the two sides would go so far as to agree upon the boundaries of the battlefield. It also tended to be extremely low in terms of body count. It was considered a better feat of arms to capture your opponent rather than killing them and there are accounts of battles involving hundreds of combatants where like 10 people died. In part this was because a) a captured opponent could be ransomed, making you mad cash, b) the aristocracy of Europe kind of viewed themselves as all belonging to the same general fraternity of knighthood, and killing your bro was kind of bad form and c) it also reflected a recognition that a fighter who had been trained from birth in mounted combat and had expensive custom gear couldn't be immediately replaced, and so was not an ideal outcome, again in light of b) and also because it would potentially lead to a gap in political power and enforcement of law that might also be hard to immediately fill. Generally the idea was not to inflict permanent damage upon the structure of your opponent's kingdom/dukedom/whatever. CK2 doesn't model this well but it would be a tricky thing to do well in a game and then: Everything changes the later you get into the MA, when armies were including larger and larger numbers of people, originally mercenaries and then a widening class of professional soldiers by the time we get to the Hundred Years War. By this time you do also start to get the idea of chevauchee style attacks on your enemy's infrastructure, populace and economy in addition to fighting on the battlefield, so in short - yes, much more of a shitshow. Peasant rebels of course throw that entirely out the window and although it's possible to imagine some sort of alliance between a peasant rebel and particular aristocrats with an axe to grind I think it's really doubtful that it's something anyone at the time would have considered. Giant Tourtiere fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Sep 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I guess maybe an additional "nouveau riche" modifier might make sense, but I don't think nobility really worried about that, especially if they got ennobled by a legitimate source, like being appointed by a lord. There's a number of "rags-to-riches" stories like that, and even by the time of the French Revolution, new people were being ennobled by buying titles, although often new nobles concoct stories of how actually they were noble all along, which muddies things. In the early middle ages (~700-1000AD) nobility was basically a nation's military power. If you could afford to arm yourself and swore an oath of fealty, that was usually enough. Plenty of the old European noble houses originated from Charlemagne tossing them out left and right to anybody willing to do this for him. Even in these times though, just handing out a title to a nobody would have been a scandal, since you were expected to have the wealth and military might to back the crown. Most of the really old houses are formed here by burgeoning nations looking to build an army. Again these date ranges are rough, but from 1000-1500 you then had the High and Late Middle Ages with an established nobility composed of many old houses, who in exchange for providing the military backbone of the nation were allowed exclusive political offices and powers. This is where the FYGM was at it's worst and rendering nobility onto a commoner, even if they performed distinguished service, would cause at a minimum some annoyed muttering and the one ennobled to be ostracized. This gets worse in the late middle ages when nobility are starting to get phased out for other forms of military power (mercs, etc) so they cling on even harder to noble blood being prestigious, because if you're an impoverished noble who isn't fighting the only thing that makes you better than the rabble is your bloodline, so you play that poo poo up as hard as you can. After that, things get complicated because from the Renaissance period onward most medieval socio-economic paradigms start to get flipped on their heads. As you pointed out at this point the French crown eventually started selling noble titles, which resulted from a confluence of several factors:
Even with all that though there were tons of divisions within the French nobility used to stratify themselves. So called "Noblesse Chevaleresque" (generational nobles who could trace their lineage back to an old family) looked down at "Noblesse des Lettres" (the nouveau riche) and would pull every archaic law and political trick out of a hat they could to marginalize their power and influence. "Sword nobles" (those generational nobles who could specifically trace their title back to an oath of fealty and rendered military service) had the right to carry a sword in public, which was considered a mark of prestige and was not afforded to "robe nobles" who had obtained their title via non-military service, even though by this time the military functions of the nobility weren't very relevant. There are others too, but but you get the point. Nobility is a case of classic FYGM, and they tried to keep others out of it as long as the possibly could, then started trying to keep each other out by arbitrarily dividing themselves. Sorry for all the  . My tl;dr is that I think it would be cool if say, you tried to give a title a nobody, your existing nobles would speak up and protest, or maybe even offer a "more suitable" candidate like a landless minor noble or somebody's fourth son, and you'd take a general penalty hit with them if you refused, with the malus escalating based on the level of the title (ie: relatively minor for a count, huge for a king).
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Please don't apologize, this stuff is wonderful to read about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Please don't apologize, this stuff is wonderful to read about. Seconded
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
The "manual" to this game is a series of nested Wikipedia links explaining what "elective gavelkind succession" meant IRL and such, so if you are reading this page, of this thread, in this forum, and are upset by tangents about historical approaches to medieval warfare as they stemmed from their political considerations: WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
I would read a 200 page dissertation about all the ways CK2 misunderstands and misrepresents feudalism. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
evenworse username posted:I think the idea is that when the rebels are peasants the entire idea of filthy commoners revolting against their lords and thus the Great Chain of Being is so repugnant that every CK2 lord will of course be against it. That's arguably not an entirely inaccurate generalization to make about how peasant rebels would have been seen in the Middle Ages; pragmatically yes it would be rad to be able to subsidize your jerk neighbour's peasant rebellion but I have trouble imagining that being a strategy that would have sat well with many medieval aristocrats. That said (and thanks to Sydin for the wonderful tangent), religious/heretic and cultural liberation revolts ALSO use this same framework and are hostile to everyone around them, even lords who would arguably be supportive of them (e.g., Persian vassals to the Caliphate in 769 being perma-hostile to Persian cultural rebels), and I agree with Cobra that that's kind of annoying. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Sep 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
Almost everything I know about feudalism I learned in CK2 And I wont hear anybody say a feudal emperor would get backlash over giving the title of king of France to a dumb commoner who happens to be his friend
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:The "manual" to this game is a series of nested Wikipedia links explaining what "elective gavelkind succession" meant IRL and such, so if you are reading this page, of this thread, in this forum, and are upset by tangents about historical approaches to medieval warfare as they stemmed from their political considerations: WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU If anyone reads the Six Ages/KoDP thread or the current Six Ages LP, every page or so there's a huge tangent about the lore of the setting those games use and everyone in the threads loves it. It would be great for more of that kind of thing here and in the other Paradox threads. There are so many interesting glimpses into history in Paradox games that don't provide anywhere near the full context.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
Who cares about which vassals like you, give the land to people that have good stats or hate you but will love you unconditionally after you give them Saxony. The guy with +300 in modifiers doesn't need anything else  Then revoke and re-issue everything during that brief golden period before "opinion of predecessor" wears off
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
Glad people found it interesting, even if it was super broad strokes  In actual game news I just managed to win a war against China when they tried to vassalize me, and am feeling pretty boss. Joke's on them of course, only reason I was able to filter all my troops over to the border to engage in the gigantic battle that shattered their forces was because I'd requested a Chinese commander years ago and I had a half dozen generals with Way of the Dog keeping my attrition rates down. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
I had the AI win a war against China, but that's because the AI bugged out and the Chinese armies kept repeatedly marching between two provinces  Any news on when the new DLC/Patch drops?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Learned words.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
New dev diary! Holy Fury is quickly turning into "All of Your Favorite CK2+ Features but With a Bigger Budget." If someone injures my cat I'm flaying them alive and stringing them up on the Theodosian walls by their scrotum. He just wanted to give snuggles to the wounded men  EDIT: couple of hidden gems from later in the thread: Byzantine Empress has a new fancy purple portrait frame, probably a new Imperial govt type. Hungarians aren't getting a new portrait set, but are getting a mix-match set, with Finnish faces and some other clothing type. Anglo-Saxons probably as well. Looks like the ugly-rear end westerngfx is dead, rest in pieces EDIT2: holy poo poo they even take into account if you've got the Hermetic handgun, so you can literally mow fools down in battle 
ninjahedgehog fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Sep 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2018 14:30
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:Looks like the ugly-rear end westerngfx is dead, rest in pieces Seriously, whenever I was playing Anglo-Saxons or whatever I found myself crossing my fingers that my kids didn't get the fatass portraits whose cheeks look like butts when they turned 16. Are Muslim portraits getting a revamp too?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2018 14:57
|
|
|
The basic Muslim portraits are the ugliest portraits in the game but I guess they're here to stay. The basic western portraits look ok to me, but most of the new sets are prettier. I just wish there were more different crowns. One of my Hungarian emperors came out Wallachian by accident, and he had the most amazing big furry hat. E: they're also changing scars. I always like it when my character loses a leg and ends up with a little scar on their chin. Guess they fell over. pidan fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Sep 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2018 15:03
|
|
|
pidan posted:I just wish there were more different crowns. One of my Hungarian emperors came out Wallachian by accident, and he had the most amazing big furry hat. My dream is a whole bunch of unique crown artifacts that actually display on your portrait when you wear them. Like, normally I'd want to wear the Iron Crown of Lombardy or whatever, but if I managed to kill your Wallachian Hungarian Emperor in single combat you bet your rear end I'm stealing that big furry hat for a cozy after-hours option.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
My Ruthenia game is fun but every one of these DDs is music to my ears, not sure if I'll finish it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Crusader Kings II: KITTEN, NO!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
If my cat dies in battle, I will make it my goal in life to grind the enemy to dust beneath my feet. I will see their house destroyed and their country despoiled. No one will be safe. Holy Fury is loving amazing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
"With the strength of a giant snail?" Should I even ask?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
Bloodly posted:"With the strength of a giant snail?" Yeah, it's a thing. According to a dev in a thread that particular text is randomly filled it with some sort of mythological creature, and "Giant Snail" is a rare one that can pop up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:Yeah, it's a thing. According to a dev in a thread that particular text is randomly filled it with some sort of mythological creature, and "Giant Snail" is a rare one that can pop up. That article is extremely good. e: it was time to change my avatar. Foul Fowl fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Sep 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
Bloodly posted:"With the strength of a giant snail?" The more important question is "can that become s nickname?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
anyone who hurts kitty is getting the brazen bull treatment. do NOT gently caress with a satanic cat-person.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
Bloodly posted:"With the strength of a giant snail?" 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2018 17:47
|
|
